3 ms·
> Their argument that 2/3rds the world is covered in water means it's a good place to build houses seems strained at best. Agreed. The houses in the article's
by antonvs 6y ago
> Their argument that 2/3rds the world is covered in water means it's a good place to build houses seems strained at best.
Agreed. The houses in the article's pictures are in a city canal and docked. They're basically using urban real estate that happens to be covered in water. Locations where you can do that are a very small fraction of Earth's area.
How this translates into using the 2/3rds of the world that's covered in water doesn't seem to be something they've really addressed.
- brnt 6y agoMost of humanity lives near coasts and rivers. The idea of these houses is that they're flooding resistant: they just move up and down with changing water levels. They're well anchored, but indeed utility connection are a weak spot, perhaps modulated by having solar panels. In either case, they obviate the need for precise and expensive regional water table control, for which the Netherlands is famous. That kind of control isn't a feasible solution for many countries, whereas floating houses would be. I'm not sure these houses are the answer though, but perhaps they'll come with some other answers to questions related to living in this way.
- jmiskovic 6y agoSure, floating houses in middle of ocean is awful idea. But one can imagine some habitats that could work in lakes and calmer seas and this could be important step. First learn which materials work over long periods, achieve structural stability, and solve numerous other practical matters in safe environment. It is easier to iterate and failure is less expensive. I have bigger problem with sticking the open source label when all they share is couple of email addresses.